cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Ben Dhyan]

But beliefs are in reality or they are really in the real non-reality. You operate with a duality of real and unreal and that is real to you. I do it differently. And that is really unreal, yet I still do it.

There is absolute awareness which is one, there is no other. If there exists a separate awareness within the absolute, then it will try to comprehend reality based on limited scope of awareness. It will think, reason, conceive, perceive, it will never in all eternity understand reality until is understands its limitation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is absolute awarenessnwhich is one, there is no other. If there exists a separate awareness within the absolute, then it will try to comprehend reality based on limited scope of awareness. It will think, reason, conceive, perceive, it will never in all eternity understand reality until is understands its limitation.

Yeah, I still do it different and you are not me.

 

[Polymath257]

But nobody knows if space/time has always existed, as in the B model of time.

Even your question shows a lack of understanding of the concept. The phrase 'has always existed' is time-laden.

Instead, the correct statement is that 'spacetime exists'. That includes the past and the future.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary, it is the rise of rationalism that lead to the decline of religious superstition. it was the flawed thinking of religious apologists that showed the illogical core of religious beliefs.



On the contrary, because the scientific discoveries contradict your religious beliefs, you reject them. And that does, in fact, mean you oppose science. Science requires going whether the evidence goes no matter what your previous beliefs.

It depends on if it is true that other humans can act differently than you in the end. They can, because I am one of them and that is true.

 

[Polymath257]

There is absolute awareness which is one, there is no other. If there exists a separate awareness within the absolute, then it will try to comprehend reality based on limited scope of awareness. It will think, reason, conceive, perceive, it will never in all eternity understand reality until is understands its limitation.

There is a state of mind that people get into where they perceive that they are at one with the universe. In actuality, that is simply an illusion produced by the brain in an unusual state.

I'd suggest reading William James 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even your question shows a lack of understanding of the concept. The phrase 'has always existed' is time-laden.

Instead, the correct statement is that 'spacetime exists'. That includes the past and the future.

Yeah, but still includes you and it is not independent of you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a state of mind that people get into where they perceive that they are at one with the universe. In actuality, that is simply an illusion produced by the brain in an unusual state.

I'd suggest reading William James 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'.

And that objective reality is in the strong sense independent of you is old philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, but still includes you and it is not independent of you.

So? I am part of the universe, not outside of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, but I am a part of all that exists and you are not me. So unless you are one with me, you are not one with all the exists. It is that simple.

If I am one with God/Universe, then it follows there is no duality. If you see reality in a dualistic manner, then that is the way it is for you.

 

[Polymath257]

And that objective reality is in the strong sense independent of you is old philosophy.

But to assume there is nothing independent is just bad philosophy. We then define objective reality to be that which is independent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So? I am part of the universe, not outside of it.

Then learn to explain 3 aspects, same/similar/different and not just true/false
You and I are in the same world, yet in some cases we are not same, but only similar and in yet other cases we are different. Yet you eliminate that ambiguity in how you as you use definitions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I am one with God/Universe, then it follows there is no duality. If you see reality in a dualistic manner, then that is the way it is for you.

So I am different than you, yet I am not because I am you as I am in the universe and you are the universe as one with universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, I still do it different and you are not me.

If I am in a state of non-duality, the concept of you and me does not arise. For the unenlightened, it remains a state of mind to be realized.

 

[F1fan]

The stories are what I believe and most people can understand that. I wasn't using it as evidence.

And why would a person believe stories that are not factually correct?

If religious beliefs have become less relevant partly because of speculation and flawed thinking by science which some people like to say is scientific truth then maybe those who say science has it all right are not being rational.

Not speculation or flawed thinking. It is valid and confirmed results in science that demonstrate religious beliefs are not relevant or true as traditionally believed.

I don't mind having a faith to justify but some people want to say that I oppose science when really all I am doing to opposing what some people call the truth (which is derived from scientific ideas) and they are using religious type faith to do that.

Since science is the highest form of knowledge that we humans have, and you oppose the results in science that rational and educated minds rely on, then you oppose science.

And you have religious faith, and it supposedly works, but when science uses faith it doesn't? Is that what you are claiming?

Don't answer because science doesn't use any tye of faith. It uses facts and observations, and an objective method that anyone can use.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So I am different than you, yet I am not because I am you as I am in the universe and you are the universe as one with universe.

Because you have not realized the state of non-duality, you will never understand until you give up the dualistic mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But to assume there is nothing independent is just bad philosophy. We then define objective reality to be that which is independent.

No, it is a relationship. I see a cat is a relationship in the universe and the cat is in a relationship with me. If it was in the strong sense independent of me, then I couldn't see it. You are playing with words. I just play differently.
You don't live in the model room totally independent of objective reality, because then you couldn't make models of it. That requires a relationship.

 

[F1fan]

I wasn't talking about belief or not in God I was talking about the corollary beliefs that come from a lack of belief in God, beliefs that many atheists have just because of their unbelief in God. They are religious beliefs.

So you have religious belief that a God exists, and atheists have a religious belief that God doesn't exist, but the atheists are wrong, yet you are right?

You are being critical of belief here, and that applies to your belief. The difference is that your belief of a God is not based on any evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I am in a state of non-duality, the concept of you and me does not arise. For the unenlightened, it remains a state of mind to be realized.

Yet I am not you, but I am you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you have religious belief that a God exists, and atheists have a religious belief that God doesn't exist, but the atheists are wrong, yet you are right?

You are being critical of belief here, and that applies to your belief. The difference is that your belief of a God is not based on any evidence.

None of us are right or wrong for this game. We just do it differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because you have not realized the state of non-duality, you will never understand until you give up the dualistic mind.

But I am you, because you are one with all, including me. So how come you treat me as non-you, because we are one.